/r/Games is for informative and interesting gaming content and discussions. Please look over our rules and FAQ before posting. If you're looking for "lighter" gaming-related entertainment, try /r/gaming!

The goal of /r/Games is to provide a place for informative and interesting gaming content and discussions. Submissions should be for the purpose of informing or initiating a discussion, not just with the goal of entertaining viewers.

Promotion

Some promotional submitting (posting your own projects, articles, etc.) is permitted, but it must be balanced out by a much greater level of non-promotion participation in reddit - the rule of thumb is no more than 10% of your submissions may be promotional. Do not solicit votes for your posts. For more information, see the self-promotion on reddit FAQ.

If you want to promote without participating in the community, purchase an ad.

Spoilers

Please report posts containing spoilers unless they are hidden using the following method or are inside a thread clearly labeled as containing spoilers.

As someone who has repeatedly been "spat in the face of," when I supported projects early in the development/release cycle, I don't think a $30 price-tag would offend anyone. That being said, I don't necessarily see the justification in charging a AAA price-tag for a game that is not very likely to have AAA polish/QA. I mean, I guess we will have to wait for the game to be released to judge it; but, from the budget, development time, and studio size, I'm having a hard time imagining the justification for that cost.

Digital Downloadable copy of game DRM free for PC or MAC OSX or Linux. This low price only available for those who helped fund. Also your party will start with a unique and quirky skill. (It won't affect game balance.)

... a digital downloadable copy upon release for those who funded the game. So it's probably going to be more than that for the general public. But not by much i guess.

Here is the one which grants beta access, also from the kickstarter page:

Pledge $55 or more

2274 backers

THE INTERNATIONAL FRIENDLY ALL DIGITAL PACKAGE! You get one digital copy of the game DRM free for PC, Mac or Linux, digital soundtrack, digital concept art book, episodic novella part 1 and 2, and premiere access to an early playable beta on steam. This comes with no physical goods to help with VAT, duty and shipping costs for our international fans!

As i said before, this is the price for anyone who wants in on the game at the same time as the backers. Of course they are going to charge less than that for the full release. They charge 44.99€ for us western europeans for early access to the game. But this is not just the game. Right now you get (according to their steam page):

A free copy of Wasteland 1 - The Original Classic.

Two digital novellas set in The Wasteland world.

Mark Morgan's Wasteland 2 original sound track in digital format.

An incredible digital concept art book showcasing many of the world's characters and environments.

And you are also are joining their indie dev team. Your participation is going to make this game better, according to them. It is also bundled with Linux and Mac versions of the game.

I think this justifies the price tag right now. Upon release they might lower it to 30€, but take the extra bits away. Charging anything less than steam offers or the regional equivalent right now is just not fair to the ones who funded it on kickstarter.

Seems like somewhere between $20-$30, unless they have changed their initial pricing place. The $15 tier on the Kickstarter was an early bird discount, while $30 was the game with beta, so it should be somewhere in between those two. Simply looking it at they made it sound like it would be $20 at release, but I doubt it is going to be sold for that.

*Edit, I was wrong about the beta tier, it was the $55 tier, so I sure the hell hope it isn't anywhere between $20 and $55. Still hoping for $20-$30 since that would make the most sense.

True, I apologize. I was trying to look at the tiers and none of them explicitly state backer access, but yeah it does say that exactly in the email. I still can't imagine them doing it anything near $55 for the release though.

If you think that $60 is too much to ask to opt into a beta, then just wait until release. For them to release the game at any less of a price would be spitting in the face of the people who are the largest fans and backed them on Kickstarter.

The game is speculated to be in the $20-30 range on release, so I don't see what the big deal is.

It's not just about getting the game to play through it. They're also testing the game. This helps inexile a lot because farming out QA is prohibitively expensive and a waste of time/resources when they have a community happy to do it for them.

Yes I can read. Wanker. The point is it's a scumbag move to charge this much for a beta when you're using people to test your game and make it better. A lot of companies do a free open beta instead of calling it early access and charging twice the release price.

Yes, and my point is that it's not a scumbag move, it's an option that also makes viable business sense and opens up a way for people highly interested in the game to get involved with the process of making the game. It's not like anyone who thinks it's too high a price has to pay for it, so why is it a scumbag move?

opens up a way for people highly interested in the game to get involved with the process of making the game.

This is a thing I said responding to that exact point. Also, the "traditional" free open beta is a long ways from traditional at this point, and I think putting it at a more prohibitive price is a good way to deter people who gloss over/ignore the early access tag because something cool and barely feature complete is only $15.

Again (and again) none of what you say is good for the consumer. An open beta also opens up the game for highly interested people to get involved. Paid beta is very simply a money making scheme. Unless you can tell me with a straight face that less testers will better find bugs than more testers.

It's a reaction I expected completely. I came to the thread to warn people about this reaction, only to see that it had started almost immediately. Planetary Annihilation had to deal with the same thing, and they were putting the alpha & beta prices on Early Access to match exactly what their Kickstarter backers had paid.

It's such a shame that people can't understand this for some reason, because all of the really toxic response is utterly unfounded. I guess it's because Minecraft became such a huge game that people immediately assume the Minecraft payment model is the only way you can run beta access. It's definitely a great way to go for unknown games/developers, but it doesn't make sense in every case.

It's not just reddit, it's entire segments of the gaming community looking for reasons to yell "BAH, ANTI-CONSUMER!" God forbid anyone take ten minutes and think about reasons why the price might be comparatively high.

yes, and what's more baffling is that it's because of a decision to raise funding through crowdsourcing made over a year ago. The ideal way to structure it is by rewarding those who pay more with rewards such as beta & alpha access in order to encourage people to pledge higher amounts. When those projects are at the stage for release, the developers hands are pretty much tied at that point.

I can understand people who complain initially simply because they are unaware that this game was funded through crowdsourcing, but there are those who will continue to argue that the developers are in the wrong. Utterly baffling.

Beta is not intended for playing as a finished game, it's intended for people who want to get access to the game while it's still in development and provide feedback to the designers and help with development.

It actually makes good sense, because they're charging for the privilege of early access. Also it helps to filter out people who just want to play the game without giving any feedback and participating in community feedback. And like it was said, it would be unfair to people who pledged $55+ on Kickstarted to get access to the beta version.

Because you want to. In your chase, you don't so you shouldn't buy in to the beta, why is this so complicated, if you feel no need to pay extra to do QA than you wait for the release version. If you feel that the release version is to expensive you wait for a sale. If you don't like the game period, you don't buy it.

I just don't understand this: " How dare they give me an option!" mentality. They are actively discureging people from buying in to an unfinished product, but are giving those willing to bear the cost and state of the game the oportunity to join and potentially make it better because they want to.

It's not half-assed, it's unfinished. Which is exactly why it's a beta. The purpose of a beta is to help them finish. They aren't putting it up for sale so the general public can get in on the ground floor, they're doing it so people who didn't back their way to beta access but still want to help the game on its way can do so.

So either get backlash from the original backers who were loyal to them or get backlash from new beta purchasers. I'm honestly happy that they are willing to take the flack from the larger market just to keep their fans happy. I'm not going to buy the beta since I don't really have the money right now but I think they made the right choice.

The original backers DONATED their money. It's not the same as making a purchase at all.

Of course, when all the scamstarter's sell additional reward tiers by offering "EXCLUSIVE SKINS" and "BETA GAMMA ZETA ACCESS" they're setting themselves up for indignant people that are just using kickstarter as a preordering platform.

I never said it was the same thing in fact in another comment I said exactly the opposite. I just said that one of the two groups is going to get mad either the backers or the purchasers. They are forced to pick who they are going to make mad because in this situation someone is going to be mad. Either make your original backers feel like they got ripped off (I agree they are backers and it's not the same as making a purchase but they would still feel ripped off and I personally would feel ripped off if I was in that situation as well) or make the new people feel like they are being overcharged.

The lesser of the two is supporting your long term backers and still offering the game without the beta at a cheaper pre order price which they have done. If you can't satisfy everyone then you have to make a decision and their decision is the right one.

The reason they feel ripped off is because of the way they pitched the game on kickstarter, though. It's a very common thing on Kickstarter to try and pull as much money out of people as possible by trying to incentivize with silly rewards, and at some point you get the people who are doing it to "get bonus shit" and not the people who just want the game to bemade and have the donating attitude.

I don't want to sound "toxic" but the truth is I'm not going to pay $60 for beta access. I really do want this game and I'll buy it when it releases even at $60 to be honest. Though I honestly think $60 is overpriced even for AAA games and that those studios need to find a way to cut costs to get prices down. I just don't have the $60 to spend right now especially on a beta.

I completely understand though that if they sold the beta now for less than what the original backers had it pay those backers might feel ripped off a bit. I'm not sure I completely agree since I think there is a difference between purchasing a product (even a beta) and funding a project but they are bound to get backlash in either situation. Either they piss off the backers or they piss off the beta purchasers. They decided to side with their backers and their long term fans and I find that completely acceptable.

tl;dr, While I don't completely agree that buying into beta and backing a project are the same thing I do accept and understand their choice to side with and support their bigger most loyal fans. People will just need to understand that their are two sides to this and they made the correct choice.

The $60 beta access price is a "gate" - Only people who are truly interested in playing the beta, enough to pay a much higher cost, will be buying into the beta. These people are more likely to 1) be people who will give feedback and 2) give feedback as a result of paying so much.

They do not want tens or hundreds of thousands of random people buying into the beta. They just want people who are really interested.

I think Steam is the problem. If they were selling the beta on their site and handing out keys like developers did before Early Access it wouldn't be an issue, but an expensive game on Steam goes against the I want cheap stuff I deserve it mentality of Steams general user base.

It's a dubble edged sword. Do you expose your beta to the widest possible audience but piss of the whiners who will stir up outrage on the internet while having no intention of buying the game before it's 75% off, or do you limit the audience but also avoid the "outrage"

That's absurd, I guarantee you they want hundreds of thousands of random people buying their game, even in beta stage. That would be the best possible outcome for them. I am surprised they opened the beta up after on two days. I had thought for sure it would remain in closed beta for at least a few months. I can only imagine that they new what great hype there is for the game and saw dollar signs at the prospect of opening the beta to everyone regardless of what people thought they were buying at their backing level of the initial Kickstarter.

The real crap of this situation are all the people who gave them $50 at the onset who are now left out entirely from the beta with no way to add $5 to get in on it.

That's absurd, I guarantee you they want hundreds of thousands of random people buying their game, even in beta stage.

You assume they're only interested in the bottom line. They're a privately owned developer who have had this project pre-funded by patron capital, so I'm not sure that's an assumption you can easily make.

There seems to be two ways of launching a beta build. Where they have all the funds and are looking for people to help stamp out bugs, a high price point is going to get the hardcore supporters on board - and, at that price, they're probably more likely to help too.

The alternative is the Minecraft style. They didn't need people to look for bugs in that game, it seemed more like they needed a bit of extra funding to help it in the early stages. Obviously the reward is a cheaper entry cost, knowing it's incomplete.

The high entery cost method is reserved for the sequels to popular games or new projects of established developers (as is the chase here)

Games like Minecraft or Kerbal space program need to have a lower cost for entery during alpha or beta because they don't have an established fanbase or a reputation. They have an unfinished game with potential and need people to buy in to that potential.

Model 2 also works best for open ended games. Getting new toys to use in your sandbox is fun. Playing through the tutorial level for the n-th time just to see the changes to level 1-2 is not. Buying in to a beta for a story driven game can ruin the experience of the finished product so keeping the general public away is a good idea.

I'm not making a judgement call, mind. I'm interested in the full release of Wasteland, but not enough for this price point or for a beta. But I'm also not going to complain because that doesn't do shit.

I didn't whine about it... I think it's good that they are charging $60 for the beta access. The only thing I disagree with is the connection people are making between buying beta access and backing a project.

They're making that connection because beta access for this game was a bonus that was priced at a higher tier than just the base game. If they priced the beta lower now than what the kickstarter people paid, they would be screwing those backers.

I'm really confused why you guys keep replying my comment saying the exact same thing I said... I said that I accept and understand that they are supporting their original backers by putting the beta at the $60 price point.

I may not have done the best at getting my point across but I literally say exactly that multiple times.

So what you're saying is they sold the beta as a "reward", or an incentive to donate extra money, and now they're charging the same price to other people who may want to help them improve their game. But don't worry, when the game is done they'll be happy to lower the price.

It's not dumb at all. You can still buy the game at a lower price without the beta. They are going to cause people raging either way just this way instead of making their backers mad they are just making people who didn't back them mad. There is no way around making one of the two groups mad in this situation.

The only real issue is when games end up on early access yet the developer offers no upgrade path for those who kick started.

I have projects that are on early access that I kick started that I don't have a key to because at the time I didn't have all the money to plop down on a future product. It's especially annoying when some of these projects are way behind target for release.

Their own fault for pitching access to the beta as a "reward" for donating a large sum of money well beyond the cost of the game. Kickstarter stretch goals and reward tiers are just trying to encourage people to donate extra money for bullshit + bullshit exclusive skin.

Now they can't sell it at a reasonable price because backers will whine (because they only donated to play the game early) and the current situation is just laughable. Why would I buy an unfinished game for more money than the finished game? The whole point of early access is to let me help you make your game better and I'm not going to pay for the fucking privilege to do so. This just reeks of trying to get extra money out of people.

You're complaining about a system that raised millions of dollars and allowed the game to be created?

The whole point of early access is to let me help you make your game better and I'm not going to pay for the fucking privilege to do so.

No, it's not the "whole point". Each game is on there for a different reason. Wastelands 2 is not there for you to make their game better. It's there as an easy way for backers to access it, and for anyone who missed out and still wants in. Also, based on the tone of your post, I don't think anyone would believe for a second that you truly want to "make [their] game better". You just want to excuse to get the game at a cheaper price.

The game's development is already paid for. They don't need more money. They don't need more testers. They certainly don't need you.

Now they can't sell it at a reasonable price because backers will whine

As opposed to people like yourself who are whining because they can't get the game for cheap. The developers would rather keep their backers happy then piss off the only people that have been supporting them in order to make you happy, someone who is being rather insulting to the business model the developer's have chosen. Why on Earth would they choose you over them?

they only donated to play the game early

They're not donations. Sooner you understand the difference, the sooner you'll understand what Kickstarter is and be capable of having a thoughtful rational discussion.

Why would I buy an unfinished game for more money than the finished game?

You don't. Wait for the release. It's obvious the Kickstarter method does not appeal to you. That's fine, but it appealed to enough people to raise the money needed to make the game. You may hate the method and you may disagree with it, but it's a popular one and it works.

This just reeks of trying to get extra money out of people.

As opposed to your post that just reeks of an entitled spoiled kid who wants an excuse to get something early and cheap. The universe doesn't revolve around you. The developers don't need to tailor their entire business method to suit your every whim and desire. It's clear by your post that you are not the target audience for the Kickstarter method. Deal with it, and wait for the retail version. It'll be cheaper and more complete.

If nothing else, the $60 price is to keep people like you out. People who want nothing else than to get a bargain to play a half finished game early and any feedback given will be nothing but mindless whining with no grasp on the reality of how things work. The game will be better off without you in the beta.

You're doing a lot of judging about my opinions and character there, bud.

I do have issues with the way devs market their games on Kickstarter. And I say this as someone who donated $500 to Double Fine's Kickstarter, because I love the studio and want to see them make a game I wanted to play. However, we've seen literally hundreds of these pop up since DF's Kickstarter and gotten bullshit like stretch goals ;Which just REEK out the days of reading people pitch mods and listing off fantasy features despite having neither the skills or organization to deliver, and scam's like Star Citizen's cash shop and bullshit like Planetary Annhilation and Wasteland 2 releasing on early access (If it's just for backers, steam does support private betas) for ridiculous prices. It reeks of more cash grabbing under the guise of "staying loyal to their backers" and "gating the beta".

My problem with it is Kickstarter has set (what I think) is shitty precedent.

That people should pay more for a beta.

I understand that they didn't want to pass off backers, but I don't think access to the beta should have been behind the higher backing in the first place.

I mean it's people's own money and they can do what they want with it, but don't be surprised if something pops on on Steam Early Access one day for 60+ that never had Kickstarter backers in the first place.

Yes 'patience is a virtue', but whether or not smaller companies have good intentions behind the higher price (ie keeping promises to backers & making sure those who do purchase really want to participate in a beta) how long do you think it is before EA starts charging $80 for access to the beta of Battlefield 5?

$90? $90 that doesn't include access to the retail game?

Sounds crazy and conspiracy like right? As bad as 60 retail games with a microtransactions and a $50 premium service addon?

I can see that happening, but I don't see why that would be a problem. I certainly won't be buying in to a 80$ BF5 beta and by virtue of it it being a beta I defiantly wont be mission out on anything.

I also won't be buying it on launch because the BF series has proven unworthy of my trust so I wait like I did for BF3 and get it in a Humble Bundle or somewhere else for an extreme discount.

I'm really trying to understand the problem here. Getting stuff early is financially always a bad idea. Getting stuff early always comes with more risk.

Micro transactions are bad because they have an adverse affect on game design. Same goes for DLC made immediately after launch. Expensive betas on the other hand cost us nothing if we just don't buy in to them. If it means even one more bug is fixed in the launch version I'm more than willing to let someone else spend their hard earned money.

That's the problem though, there ate people who will spend ridiculous amounts of money on this stuff.

how is this a justification for your stance?

If they exist, that means its a product/service they value. Why shouldn't they get the chance to pay for it? They pay what they deem its worth to them, why are you making a value judgement on whether the amount of money they are willing to spend is "ridiculous"?

I don't think telling them that unfinished products are actually worth more money than finished ones is a good idea.

if only they could judge for themselves whether getting to play a more buggy version early is worthwhile. If only there is some sort of mechanism in place so that those who deem it worthwhile could get the chance to do it and those who don't will just skip it...

The same incentive there was for publishers and devs to participate in the Steam sales.

First you sell to the people that will buy at any price. Than you sell to the people who will buy at the high launch price. Then you sell to the people who will buy it for a slight discount and finally to the people who will buy it for a large discount.

Even if you could sell 10 copies of a game for 1,000,000$ each, why wouldn't you want to sell 1,000,000 copies for 10$ or hell even a buck a copy. Unlike physical goods that actually take space and time and materials to make new copies of, once you make a game you can reproduce it indefinably at next to no cost so you can sell it for almost nothing and still make a profit.

Also, they know full well that unfinished copies are worth more. They see the geniuses lined up for days to buy the worst versions of the new consoles, with next to no games at a premium. They see people pre-ordering games and buying them at launch even after numerous bugs have bean exposed. At least with a beta you know what your getting in to and unlike pre-orders, they are actually trying to get you not to buy it by setting a higher price instead of throwing in some meaningless goodies.

I agree with your sentiment. Creating a situation where you promise beta access only to backers over a certain threshold creates an unfortunate situation in some ways. Not that I am agreeing or disagreeing, it is certainly within their rights to promise beta access in whatever way they wish. Once they have promised beta to those over 60$ going back on that and giving it to everyone (especially during the early phases) would be seen as a betrayal by a segment of their fans. However it also creates the situation where fans and backers that didn't go all the way up to 60 (sometimes because they couldn't afford to) can't play the beta, while those that break the law will no doubt download and play it with impunity.

I can't speak for anyone else but I backed Wasteland 2 at the $55 level(as well as putting money in 2 group pledges) and the beta really didn't factor in my decision at all. This was a game I wanted made and willing to pay that much.

As I backed at $140, the beta was the last thing on my mind. I wouldn't have minded if they set the steam early access at $25 with beta, but I know many people backed at the $55 level, probably adding a few bucks on just for a shot at the beta, and as such I empathise more with them than the entitled snots in the steam community that are strangely desperate to play the game.

They said in an update awhile ago that there's little to no chance of saves carrying over, but that they may make a user tool that allows you to transfer your beta characters over to the final game; no promises though.

Wow Mark Morgan is making the music for this, he makes the best soundtrack music imo, also the companions aren't premade like in fallout 1 and 2? That is a little disappointing, but will they still be fleshed out like fallout 1 and 2 companions?

You sort of have your team, then companions. The companions aren't really part of your team, and you can switch them out. They don't always listen to your commands during combat and will sometimes do their own thing.

The companions are premade and you receive them as part of quests etc, whereas you make your team in the character creator. Think of it as making 4 PCs instead of 1, since they all function as the PC. I don't know if companions become fleshed out - the one you receive early hints at further plot but I'm unsure we'll get to see it in the beta.

All I'm seeing is talk about the Early Access price. Has no one actually purchased and tested out the game yet? I feel like that would be the most telling contribution to the discussion. Is early access worth the $60?

What a bunch of fucking entitled babies. You are NOT entitled to beta test ANYTHING. What the devs have done is stay true to their word and keep it fair for the people who made this game happen. Just fucking pay the $25 US on their website and play it when it releases. Jeezus.

Originally posted by Brother None:
Hello,
Why is this game $60?
We are a Kickstarter-funded project and like many Kickstarter projects had "early beta access" as a reward in several of our higher-priced tier, specifically from the digital $55 tier upwards. Our Steam pricing follows the same logic, as it is unacceptable for us to set a price-point that would be unfair for our backers. The final release price will be lower.
For $60 you get Wasteland 2, early beta access, Wasteland 1, and several digital goodies.

I'm a big fan of (and owner of) every iteration of Fallout and STALKER. Can anyone with insight or better Google-Fu than I tell me what this game has to offer that sets it apart from these two franchises?

I'm a big fan of (and owner of) every iteration of Fallout and STALKER. Can anyone with insight or better Google-Fu than I tell me what this game has to offer that sets it apart from these two franchises?

Wasteland 2 is meant to be a "return to roots" of sorts. Fallout was originally a spiritual sequel to Wasteland. Then when Bethesda got the Fallout licence it went in a new direction; Wasteland 2 is trying to go back in that original direction, just updated to reflect technological and iterative advancements, while still retaining the original style.

If you enjoy turn based combat you'll enjoy it. The game is solid (if obviously unfinished at this point). The retail price is speculated at $30 and at that price I would say it's a must buy based on what I've gotten to play.

When the next assassin's creed/CoD/whatever is announced early next year, they're going to be taking pre-orders immediately; charging $60, and it won't be done either AND you won't even get to play it until November.

Actually, I bet people /would/ pay $120 to get early access for those games too. That would be interesting to see, but would probably kill the hype momentum for big AAA games' actual releases so probs wouldn't be possible.

If it was any less, the Kickstarter backers wouldn't be too impressed (including myself). Only tiers at and above $55 get early beta access. If you don't like the price (which from what I played so far is totally worth it), wait until the game is actually released to buy it.

It is about getting games made that most likely wouldnt have been developed and the people who backed it are the most loyal and die hard fans who took the risk to get it funded. It would not have been a very respectable thing to do to burn the very people who have supported the project the most

I dont really see the issue here, if you dont want to drop 60 dollars on early access (which is most people) then dont do it. Get the game when it is fully released if you are interested

I don't mean it as getting a bargain at all. What I'm getting at is the fact that some people pitched in a decent amount of money on Kickstarter (more than the game will cost when it releases) and were told they would be entitled to help beta test the game because of that.

Those people would feel betrayed if that entitlement was suddenly given to everyone else who only supported with a fraction of the amount required to get in on the beta access tiers during the Kickstarter campaign. I would personally see it as a slap in the face from someone I supported from the beginning if they pulled something like that.

Or, put another way, they're paying extra to have it delivered early. Look at how much people are willing to pay for a launch-day console (especially on the PS3) because they don't want to wait a few weeks or months for supplies to be restocked.

Imagine if Sony decided to have an early-day auction where people bid and the winners were to get their PS4 3 months early. The price would be astounding, and since development of the OS continued right up to the launch, it would still be beta quality stuff.

Actually, the cheapest pledge with beta access cost $50, according to the internal backer store (you can upgrade to it if you made a lower pledge). The same pledge now costs $55, available here: http://wasteland.inxile-entertainment.com/store.

I'm a backer, at at the $15 level, I don't get access to the alpha or beta. I have to wait for the release.

I think that because Backers gave money so much earlier, they should be rewarded with having paid the cheapest price for it. The ones who paid $30 a year ago and a half ago are only just now getting access to it.